Judgment

Mahajan., J. :- These two petns. for enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19 (1) (g), Const. Ind. have been made by a proprietor & an employee respectively of a bidi manufacturing concern of District Sagar (State of Madhya Pradesh). It is contended that the law in force in the State authorising it to prohibit the manufacture of bidis in certain villages including the ones wherein the aspects reside is inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution & is consequently void.

2. The Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, LXIV [64] of 1948 was passed on 19-10-1948 & was the law in force in the State at the commencement of the Constitution. Sections 3 & 4 of the Act are in these terms : "

3. The Deputy Commissioner may by notification fix a period to be an agricultural season with respect to such villages as may be specified therein.

4. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, by general order which shall extend to such villages as he may specify, prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season. (2). No person residing in a village specified in such order shall during the agricultural season engage himself in the manufacture of bidis, and no manufacture shall during the said season employ any person for the manufacture of bidis." 3. On 13-6-1950 an order was issued by the Dy. Comr., Sagar under the provisions of the Act forbidding all persons residing in certain villages from engaging in the manufacture of bidis. On 19-6-1950 these two petns. were presented to this Ct. under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order as it prejudicially affected the petnrs right of freedom of occupation & business. During the pendency of the petns. the season mentioned in the order of the 13th June ran out. A fresh order for the ensuing agricultural season-8th October to 18th November 1950-was issued on 29-9-1950 in the same terms. This order was also challenged in a supplementary petition. 4. Article 19 (1) (g) runs as follows :" "All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business." The article guarantees freedom of occupation & business. The freedom guaranteed herein is, however, subject to the limitations imposed by cl. (6) of Art. 19. That clause is in these terms : "Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it prescribes or empowers any authority to prescribe, or prevent the State from making any law prescribing or empowering any authority to prescribe professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business."

5. The point for consideration in these applns is whether the Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV [64] of 1948 comes within the ambit of this saving clause or is in excess of its provisions. The learned counsel for the petnrs contends that the impugned Act does not impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right in the interests of the general public but totally negatives it. In order to judge the validity of this contention it is necessary to examine the impugned Act & some of its provisions. In the preamble to the Act, it is stated that it has been enacted to provide measures for the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas. Sections 3 & 4 cited above empower the Dy. Comr. to prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season. The contravention of any of these provisions is made punishable by S.7 of the Act, the penalty being imprisonment for